In an attempt to get a better grasp on the discussion and disagreement in this thread I have chosen to begin with the following.....
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Fundamentalism
NOUN:
1.)A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.)
(A) often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
(B)Adherence to the theology of this movement.
As can easily be noticed by even the least educated of individuals, the above dictionary definition, while accurate, is hardly sufficient in describing the term "FUNDAMENTALISM", though I am quite certain that some would prefer such a narrow explanation of this term. Having said that, allow me to offer something a bit more substantial.....
From the Colombia Encyclopedia:
Fundamentalism
1.)In Protestantism, religious movement that arose among conservative members of various Protestant denominations early in the 20th century, with the object of maintaining traditional interpretations of the Bible and of the doctrines of the Christian faith in the face of Darwinian evolution, secularism, and the emergence of liberal theology.
A group protesting "modernist" tendencies in the churches circulated a 12-volume publication called The Fundamentals (190912), in which five points of doctrine were set forth as fundamental: the Virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the substitutional atonement, and the physical second coming of Christ. The debate between fundamentalists and modernists was most acute among the Baptists and the Presbyterians but also arose within other denominations. In a highly publicized case, the so-called Monkey Trial (1925), the fundamentalist leader William Jennings Bryan won Tennessee's case against J. T. Scopes, for teaching evolution in the public schools (see Scopes trial). Other attempts, however, by fundamentalists in the 1920s to rid the churches of modernism and the schools of evolution failed.
By the 1930s many fundamentalists began to withdraw into independent churches and splinter denominations, and fundamentalism became identified in the public mind with anti-intellectualism and extremism. Many fundamentalists rejected this image, and a movement was begun in the late 1940s to present their position in both a more scholarly and popular way. This movement, known as neoevangelicalism (or, more simply, evangelicalism), sought a wider following from the major denominations through its various schools, youth programs, publications, and radio broadcasts. The separatists saw these efforts as compromising fundamentalist views and sought to disassociate themselves from these religious institutions and such well-known evangelical fundamentalists as Billy Graham.
Since the late 1970s fundamentalists have embraced electoral and legislative politics and the "electronic church" in their fight against the latest perceived threat to traditional religious values: so-called secular humanism, communism, feminism, legalized abortion, homosexuality, and the ban on school prayer. They have continued to oppose the teaching of evolution in the schools or have sought to have creationism taught as well. In recent years some fundamentalists have also attacked the teaching of scientific theories on the origins of the universe (see cosmology). Those Americans who describe themselves as fundamentalists (approximately 25% of the U.S. population) have become a political bloc in their own right. During the 1980s they made up a large portion of the new Christian right that helped put Ronald Reagan into the White House. The Moral Majority, founded by the fundamentalist Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell in 1979, was the most visible example of this new trend in the 1980s; the most prominent current group is the Christian Coalition, headed by Pat Robertson. Moderate fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals continue to forge new alliances, for example in the Southern Baptist Convention, to weld political and denominational control.
See N. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 19181931 (1954, repr. 1963); L. Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 19301956 (1963); E. R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (1970); M. Ellingsen, The Evangelical Movement (1988); W. H. Capps, The New Religious Right (1990).
2.) In other religions. In Islam, the term "fundamentalism" encompasses various modern Muslim leaders, groups, and movements opposed to secularization in Islam and Islamic countries and seeking to reassert traditional beliefs and practices. After the Shiite revolution (1979) led by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the term was applied to a number of ultra-conservative or militant Islamic movements there and in other countries, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan. There are both Shiite and Sunni fundamentalist leaders and groups, such as the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Muslim Brotherhood. The term has also been applied to Hindu nationalist groups in India (see Hinduism; Bharatiya Janata party).
It is my contention that one must be both careful and clear when using such terms. Fundamentalism is not a 4-letter word and adherents to the teachings of both the old and new testaments could be labeled as fundamentalist propagandists, depending upon the level of their individual dependancy and adherence to said works. Now to be clear, I must state that if I were required to choose and to claim an allegiance to either, and thereby openly promote expanding the teaching of either to the exclusion of the other, those whose choice was opposite of mine would no doubt label me as a fundamentalist propagandist, or a heretic.
I must also admit and confess that since joining EVC my views have indeed moved in the direction of creationism as opposed to evolutionism and this move is based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is an ever-growing realization that the possibility of evolution happening in the manner that is promoted by the majority of evolutionists is virtually non-existant.
This, however, does not give any greater credence to the idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing god throwing this whole thing together a mere six thousand years ago. Just the fact that it would take much longer than that for the light from distant stars to arrive at the earth is a big stumbling block to that premise.
My recent involvement in the political process, working to further the agenda of morality and conservatism, could be falsely interpreted by some as an evangelical position, based upon religious beliefs. So you see, even I could be labeled a "fundamentalist", depending upon the individual whose may be assessing my position. I will have to read a larger number of posts to get a greater understanding of the individual positions that have been taken here and I cannot say how much free time I will be able to expend in this arena, so bear with me if I am tardy in responding to anyone.
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
™ Version 4.2
